Re: 4 Exercises To Burn Fat Like Crazy

On Oct 8, 1:25 am, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Bolaleman" <hull...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:9da7acb3-d404-4108-b5ea-73f98c910824@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 7, 7:31 pm, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



"Bolaleman" <hull...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:efa13105-2755-454e-899a-c0e7e4ea694b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 6, 9:53 pm, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Another wannabbee fitness guru, apparently.

Anyone who thinks the "average person" can expend 300-500 cals in 1/2
hour
has no personal experience with exercise, and/or is oblivious to the
literature.

Not to mention that exercise does not burn fat like crazy. In fact,
there
are a multitude of arguments that exercise, regardless of intensity,
does
not burn fat beyond the bmr, and one could argue that intensity causes
*less* fat burning.

No doubt training -- serious training -- can induce better fat-burning
metabolism during exercise, but this might be possible in only a select
few,
who then have a decided advantage in endurance-type exercise. Just as
select individuals have a decided advantage in their carb-loading
capacity.
Or individuals with long legs....

It is also not true that more cal-intense exercise is tougher on the
joints,
if you know how to choose/design the exercise.

This is the reason I posted this publication (which i found by
accident in the web). I wanted to get some comments exactly concerning
this point: burning 330+ calories in half an hour - for me this sounds
incredible and I would like to know if this physically is feasible.
Bolaleman

=================================================

A 10-minute mile is about 10 cals/min for the "standard" 70 kg male (154
lbs) -- and is proportional to other body weights.

Barring specific talents or handicaps, 10 cals/min in any given aerobic
exercise are just as exhausting as doing any other aerobic exercise.
So assholes who get up and proclaim, "Oh, I just burned 900 calories in 45
minutes using POS machine ABC and I didn't even know it" are your typical
testimonial pathological liars.

Most joggers barely eke out 12 min miles, and those are few and far
between -- go to any park, and you can count joggers on a crooked left
hand.
The fastest mile the avg person can walk (and not too comfortably at that)
is a 15 min mile, and most do 18,19,20 min miles.

At 12 min miles, the calorie burn is 8-9 cals/min, which is about 250 cal
for 1/2 hr, for 2.5 miles. Few people can do this, despite the huge PR of
the NYC/Boston marathons.

30 mins at a 12 min pace is 2.5 miles, and is exhausting to the avg
person,
which is why so few people do it, and instead opt for these bull***
machines.

Which means very few people are capable of caloric expenditures of 250
cals
half hour, never mind 3, 4 or 500. Elite marathoners expend about 1200
cal/hr (5 min miles), or 600 cal per half hour.
To claim 500 cals in 1/2 hr puts an individual in near-elite world class
running, which, NYC/Boston marathons notwithstanding, is a cohort of about
1
in 1,000,000.

And, as stated above, 500 cals per 1/2 hour is 'world class" regardless of
the activity. It is metabolically extraordinary.

With some practice and fairly intense willpower, the "avg person" can
indeed
routinely run 2.5 miles in 1/2 hr, and in my more manic phases, I myself
do
this.

But let me tell you, it's not an effort I relish, and 99.9% of the time,
I'm
by myself, regardless of the place.
After a month or two of this, I take a month or two -- or three or four --
off.

You'll see college kids in track jack-rabbiting all over the place, but
rarely anyone out of college. And college rabbits are a very small
fraction
of any college population.

Most infomercial crap -- or any commercial stuff, save some of these
equally
silly "bootcamp" programs -- rarely crack 5 cals/min. The standard male
burns 5 cal/min walking a 17 min mile, which barely qualifies as brisk.

Thus, most commercial crap is no better than a g-d walk a few times around
the block a few times. Go figger.

5 cal/min -- doing anything -- certainly beats channel surfing, and is
legitimately therapeutic and healthful, but which does not "melt the fat
off" by any stretch of the imagination.

And regardless, glycolysis fuels aerobic effort. Not fat. Look up
"respiratory quotient" to see why.

If I understand well, the calorie burn depends (logically) on the
physical efford and for a "standard" male is about:
10 cals/min at a 10-minute mile
8-9 cals/min at a 12 min mile, and
5 cal/min at a 17 min mile (walking)

The difference between a normal walk and a 10-minute mile is for my
physical condition "huge" and for me does not justify the 100% of
calorie burn gain per time unit. I prefer to walk a little longer,
able to enjoy the environment and my girl friends pribble-prabble :-)

==============================================

Alternating walking/running is an excellent -- albeit arduous -- strategy..
Your fitness level and affinity for running will naturally adjust the
walk/run ratio.  Full-out sprinting is sprinting is a very "high-quality"
exertion, and sprint-walking is increasingly favored by trainers, etc.

=================================================

Under glycolysis under weight loss aspects I understand that muscle
cells start burning carbohydrates, converting glucose into pyrovate.
Why does this normal process "fuel" aerobic effords? Hydrocarbons are
simply the most efficient and easily available energy source of our
body. Please explain.

==================================================

Strictly speaking, there are no hydrocarbons (C+H only) in the human body,
with exception of perhaps the metabolic intermediary squalene, a precursor
to cholesterol and other fair-sized molecules.   And it is highly
unsaturated.

The "hydrocarbons" of which you speak (fatty acids) are hydrocarbons
"activated" by COOH, which allows beta oxidation (fat metabolism) to take
initiate.

The best way to visualize the diffeence between beta oxidation and
glycolysis is to think of a slightly cracked spigot feeding a garden hose
(beta ox), and someone dumping big buckets of water (glycolysis).  Glycogen,
which overwhelms the itty bits of fat in muscle, is catabolized in
glycolysis in avalanche-waterfall like fashion, under the instantaneous
demands of muscle.  Weight lifting requires the avalanche, and aerobics
requires a waterfall.  BMR utilizes the cracked spigot of beta ox, and is
fairly constant at about 1 cal/min, 24 hrs a day -- which is what gives the
approx 1500 cals/day BMR.

The proponents of fat burning seem to operate under a kind of sexy impunity,
along with a number of other irrational "cartels", like the cholesterol
cartel, and others.  When examined in terms of fundamentals, it is almost
impossible for fat burning to occupy a major role in muscular energy
metabolism, from a variety of povs:  there so little fat in the muscle cell
itself (IMTG) that it has only been recently recognized.  The Respiratory
Quotient (or RER) TELLS the ex. physiologiat that at higher intensities,
less fat is burned in proportion.
Simiarly, when the etiology of atherosclerosis is examined, cholesterol is a
very unlikely culprit.  But try telling that to the AMA.  Or Pfizer.

However, as you will see from the following link, there is enough fat
burning going on that if one competitor has enough of an edge of fat burning
over another, to spare carb burning, he can win the race, when glycogen is
depleted.

http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com/low-intensity-exercise-weigh...
is a good synopsis of the process, with numbers. I don't know that I totally
agree with those numbers, but it does get the  point across.
For example, they claim that walking at 16 min/mile pace (3.8 mph) is 8
cal/min, and running 9 min. mile (6.5 mph) is 15 cal/min.  These are high,
but could be so for heavier subjects.

Also, in their %-age estimates for fat burning, one should *subtract out*
the bmr level of 1 cal/min to get the *true %-age due to exercise*.  This is
a little arithmetically tricky, but not rocket science.  Then, the fat
burning due to exercise becomes even lower, in their comparison: from 41%
down to 28% for walking, and 24% down to 17% for running.

My own personal opinion is that people are looking for fat burning so badly
they somehow find it.  I think that if the data were looked at closely, that
constant 1 cal/min of bmr fat burning would account for all the fat burning
you see during exercise, plus a little bit. I could be wrong, but I'd bet a
few scheckels that I'm closer to right.

The best way to burn fat is just to sleep (95% fat burning).  This is
specious, of course, as the total caloric burn is so low.

The article closes with:
"If weight loss is a major goal for an individual, the exercise regimen that
burns the greatest number of calories in the shortest period of time should
be what is prescribed. Determination of what activity the person enjoys, as
well as what they can orthopedically and psychologically tolerate, are the
main factors that should guide the exercise prescription. Consideration of
the specific fuel burned during exercise should play no role in the exercise
prescription process. Until proven otherwise, when it comes to weight loss,
a calorie burned is a calorie burned, regardless of its source."

Note, tho, that in the excellent PBS - NOVA program on
marathoning-from-scratch, only one participant lost any weight at all (all
12 or so successfully competed), and except for that one, none of the body
compositions changed!  ie, bodyfat % remained the same.  Of course, only one
was really overweight to begin with.
  Their VO2, however, increased dramatically,

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

Thanks Existential Angst, I think I learned quite a bit from you.

You explained very well the difference between beta oxidation and
glycolysis thinking of a slightly cracked spigot feeding a garden hose
(beta ox) and someone dumping big buckets of water (glycolysis). If I
think of my body like a machine, then I would prefer reducing the
carbohydrates in order to accelerate the beta oxydation (or fat
burning) process in order to get rid of my belly. The drawback of this
practice, however, is that my body likely will go into a type of shock
position as it's used to a steady flow of fuel through food and when
that doesn't happen it begins to panic. The result will be a gradual
change of my metabolic system resulting
in a storage of my carbs as body fat so that it doesn't run out of
fuel. That's how I understand why so called low carb diets are failing
many times, resulting in a weight loss plateau where you don't lose
weight any more despite dieting.

Well, I personally found a way to reduce (and control) my weight
considerably avoiding this effect using a quite simple technique
called calorie shifting. This technique is accomplished by constantly
changing what you eat (preferably always according to the food
pyramide), so that your body doesn't get used to any routine. This
causes your metabolism to remain high and your body to lose weight
faster and more sustainable.

My experience with calorie shifting is explained in my blog
http://healthylossdiet.blogspot.com/
What I still need to improve in controlling my weight is accelerating
my metabolism by improving my physical training, even though I'm not a
person one would call athletic or a sportsman :-). For this your
explanations are very helpful. Thanks.
.

Quantcast